John Stuart Mill vs. Immanuel Kant - 2163 Words

John Stuart Mill vs. Immanuel Kant The aim of this paper is to clearly depict how John Stuart Mill’s belief to do good for all is more appropriate for our society than Immanuel Kant’s principle that it is better to do whats morally just. I will explain why Mill’s theory served as a better guide to moral behavior and differentiate between the rights and responsibilities of human beings to themselves and society. Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill are philosophers who addressed the issues of morality in terms of how moral customs are formed. Immanuel Kant presented one perspective in The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals that is founded on his belief that the worth of man is inherent in his skill to reason. John Stuart Mill holds†¦show more content†¦Mill disagreed that it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied, meaning, human dissatisfaction is superior to animal satisfaction, or more clearer stated as better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. This means the fool would simply be of a different view because he did not know both sides of the question. This statement means that Mill has rejected the identification of the concept happiness and replaced it with pleasure and the absence of pain and rejected the concept unhappiness and replaced it with pain and the absence of pleasure. Even though his point was based on the maximization of hap piness, he showed the differences between pleasures that are higher and lower in quality. Mills principle of utility seeks for the logical rationality of ethics through the consequences of actions as the consideration determining their morality, therefore the possession of happiness as opposed to the avoidance of pain. Utilitarianism might be an instance of a more general theory of right consequentialism, which supports that right and wrong can only, be reviewed by the kindness of consequences. This common kind of theory can be easily understood by considering the form of consequentialism. Consequentialism states that an act is right if, of those accessible to the agent at the time, it would produce the most overall value in the end. UtilitarianShow MoreRelatedKant And Mill On Animal Ethics Essay1365 Words   |  6 PagesIn this essay I will begin by explaining the overall views of Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill, then compare and contrast the ideas and philosophies of Kant and Mill on Animal Ethics. I believe that Kant, the deontologist, will not care as much about t he duty/responsibility between humans and animals as Mill, the utilitarian, who will see the extreme importance of animal ethics. After studying and explaining the views and teachings of these two philosophers I will see if my thesis was correct,Read MoreUtilitarianism And Utilitarianism1066 Words   |  5 Pagesstudied by and branched from two English philosophers by the names of, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. Utilitarianism can even be linked back to as far as 341-270 BC with the Epicurates. â€Å"What is utilitarianism?†, one might ask. Utilitarianism is an idea that can be simply grounded on the belief of human reasoning. When referring to Utilitarianism, John Stuart Mill is the name that is often brought up. Mill came up with a belief known as â€Å"the principle of utility† or â€Å"the greatest happy principle†Read MoreThe Differences Between Moral Motivation1390 Words   |  6 PagesThe differences between moral motivation in Groundworks and Utilitarianism Among the history of moral philosophy, two major philosophers, Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill from the 18th and 19th century have come up with two different moral theories for the moral philosophy. Kant had established his view of moral in his bookâ€Å"The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of morals† and claimed that motivation of an actions are based on duty and reason. On the other hand, Mill’s idea is that actions baseRead MoreKant vs. Mill1576 Words   |  7 PagesKant vs Mills in Animal Rights In this essay I will cover the philosophy of Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill. I will begin by covering Kant perspective of rational beings and his idea of a priori learning. I will then move on to his idea of categorical imparaitive. After Kant I will discuss Mill’s utilitarian theory regarding pleasure and pain. With a better understanding of those I will move to Mill’s idea of a posteriori and hypothetical imperative. Following the ideas of these philosophersRead MoreThe Moral Dispute Of John Stuart Mill And Immanuel Kant1500 Words   |  6 Pagesbe explored further in this review along with the works of some of his successors. The Moral Dispute John Stuart Mill vs Immanuel Kant Philosopher John Stuart Mill’s theory highlights utilitarianism and Kantian theory would be the total opposite. Mill’s position links happiness with morality and focused solely on the outcomes of an action. Philosopher John Kant’s theory emphasizes the importance of rationality, reliability, and neutrality with highlights on the reason or willRead MoreKant Vs. Mill : The Battle Of Morality1910 Words   |  8 PagesKant vs. Mill: The Battle of Morality Section I Immanuel Kant states that moral law must be discovered through a priori investigation in order for it to be universal. He rejects that moral law can be discovered through empirical feelings or experiences. He says, â€Å"All philosophy insofar as it is founded on experience may be called empirical, while that which sets forth its doctrines as founded entirely on a priori principles may be called pure† (Kant 1). Kant values a priori knowledge on a higherRead MoreA Decent Job At Separating Religion From Morality1405 Words   |  6 Pagesconsequentialism Mills and Bentham use. Morals can be dependent of an individual’s preferences depending on the individual’s motives behind their actions. If one is religiously motivated to be moral, and fears the consequences if they are not moral, then they are not going off of their individual preferences. Those who decide what they want to do based off of their own pleasures, make moral decisions based on their own interests a nd preferences. Mill and Bentham, Aristotle, and Kant all have differentRead MoreJohn Stuart Mill And Thomas Hobbes1128 Words   |  5 Pageslooking through history it is quite easy to see that philosophers such as John Stuart Mill and Thomas Hobbes are talking about very different things than Immanuel Kant and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Hobbes proclaims, â€Å"Liberty, or freedom, signifieth properly the absence of opposition (by opposition, I mean external impediments of motion)†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (Hobbes 136). While Mill describes liberty as â€Å"that of pursuing our own good in our own way† (Mill 14). Undoubtedly, these are both negative conceptions. In contrast, RousseauRead MoreAssisted Suicide, Morally Wrong or Your Right?2852 Words   |  12 Pageseveryone, humans and creatures alike, want to enjoy pleasures and avoid suffering. Starting from this principal ethics becomes a calculation of how to balance the greatest pleasure over suffering. (Waller, 2008, p. 50) Accordin g to utilitarian John Stuart Mill, â€Å"Actions are right as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce pain or the reverse of happiness.† (Defining Utilitarianism) Jeremy Benthams Hedonic Calculus of utilitarian ethics states that we should always try to performRead MoreUtilitarianism : An Ethical Philosophy Created By John Stuart Mill1432 Words   |  6 PagesBrandy Fussell Professor Legum Jan. 14, 2017 Ethics 74 Utilitarianism is an ethical philosophy created by John Stuart Mill, it focuses on the happiness of a large group of people in society which is considered to be the greater good. According to Mill’s doctrine, it focuses on actions that creates happiness and unhappiness, the happiness is considered to cause pleasure and unhappiness which is considered the reverse of pleasure, which is pain. The fundamental principle of morality is the